As long as the government keeps deficit spending then it's sustainable. When it decides to stop that it becomes unsustainable because the government is the source of money.
Blessed
- Thread starter SKULL
- Start date
betterinvestmentthanshare
Well-Known Member
It is unsustainable, it’s why we have boom and bust cycles
betterinvestmentthanshare
Well-Known Member
It is a scam Shiney, People are lead to the slaughter like lambs. It happens in every cycle and only those in the know capitalise.
Governments understand human nature and so do corporations, unfortunately the masses don’t. Wouldn’t you say that’s a scam? Just like insider trading
Governments understand human nature and so do corporations, unfortunately the masses don’t. Wouldn’t you say that’s a scam? Just like insider trading
It's unsustainable for us.
They can print longer than we can stay solvent.
Like Greenspan said, they can guarantee Social Security checks forever because they can print.
They just cant guarantee the purchasing power.
They can print longer than we can stay solvent.
Like Greenspan said, they can guarantee Social Security checks forever because they can print.
They just cant guarantee the purchasing power.
I wouldn't call it a scam. I point the finger at monetary policy failure. The wealthy benefit from this failure at the expense of the non-wealthy. Hence why my views have changed over the past few years. For example I would advocate taxing the absolute shit out of the rich and I'm quite happy to see the Labor government make changes to SMSFs as well in order to reduce wealth inequality. >ducks the rocks being thrown in my direction<
Also anyone thinking that fiat currency should maintain its purchasing power fails to understand that the money supply must continuously increase in order to maintain our living standards. The fact that our living standards may be declining in some areas of our lives is a fault of poor fiscal policy.
So you've got poor monetary policy that favours the wealthy, and poor fiscal policy that harms averafe Australians.
For some it will never be felt and they will be rolling in the dough.
For most others it already feels like the walls are closing in and they are probably questioning everything they ever knew.
For most others it already feels like the walls are closing in and they are probably questioning everything they ever knew.
Lets hope they do and put pressure on the government. It has the capacity to change course but it lacks the willingness.
Michael Kay
Well-Known Member
Here we go again with the same old arguments. Shiney is no doubt a smart guy, but you gotta know your audience. People that are into PMs are more on the fringe, and are more than likely to be red pillers than blue ones.
Read the news, Britain and France are currently facing sovereign debt crises... if no one buys the gov't debt, then there are major issues, and they can print and devalue and it can go on for years, but eventually the currency becomes next to worthless.
Read the news, Britain and France are currently facing sovereign debt crises... if no one buys the gov't debt, then there are major issues, and they can print and devalue and it can go on for years, but eventually the currency becomes next to worthless.
Ok.
Firstly, don't listen to anything Keir Starmer says. He has absolutely no fkn idea. Britain is not facing a sovereign debt crisis, it's politicians are facing a reality crisis, that's all.
Secondly, you'll have to explain to me how France is suffering a sovereign debt crisis as it doesn't issue it's own currency and I'm out of the loop there.
Thirdly, blue pillers and red pillers is a great concept for movies. And that's it.
And finally, government debt is just a means to control the interest rate on bonds, it doesn't fund government spending. And our currency can't become worthless because that's what we pay taxes in.
Firstly, don't listen to anything Keir Starmer says. He has absolutely no fkn idea. Britain is not facing a sovereign debt crisis, it's politicians are facing a reality crisis, that's all.
Secondly, you'll have to explain to me how France is suffering a sovereign debt crisis as it doesn't issue it's own currency and I'm out of the loop there.
Thirdly, blue pillers and red pillers is a great concept for movies. And that's it.
And finally, government debt is just a means to control the interest rate on bonds, it doesn't fund government spending. And our currency can't become worthless because that's what we pay taxes in.
Michael Kay
Well-Known Member
And movies can impart knowledge. Here's a quote I like from that same film:
"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
Ok, the quote can equally apply to those caught in fallacious economic theories then.
betterinvestmentthanshare
Well-Known Member
I’ve learnt that listening to both sides have benefits. I may not agree with everything Shiney believes to be true but I still value his perspective, his input. There are many that share Shiney’s beliefs and it helps me to project the path of the majority which is extremely important when it comes to investing.
I only wish that both camps would at least respect each other
I only wish that both camps would at least respect each other
Interesting take because my position on monetary theory is most definitely not the view held by the majority.
betterinvestmentthanshare
Well-Known Member
Hmmmm,
Wrong choice of words
Perhaps “establishment” would of be more appropriate
There would be views that I hold that are common to myself and the establishment, and there are views I hold that are the antithesis of those held by the establishment. And this would be true of many of those who buy gold and silver as well.
I think care needs to be taken with arriving at a whole conclusion about someone's beliefs based on single elements that that person may hold.
Mosler's "Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy"
1. The government must raise funds through taxation or borrowing in order to spend. In other words, government spending is limited by its ability to tax or borrow.
2. With government deficits, we are leaving our debt burden to our children.
3. Government budget deficits take away savings.
4. Social Security is broken.
5. The trade deficit is an unsustainable imbalance that takes away jobs and output.
6. We need savings to provide the funds for investment.
7. It’s a bad thing that higher deficits today mean higher taxes tomorrow.
Go through the list above, you'd find both "blue pillers" and "red pillers" in common agreement with many if not all all.
Naturally, I disagree with all seven. Does that make me mainstream or establishment? Or does it mean I have a heterodox view on monetary matters?
https://moslereconomics.com/wp-cont...n-Deadly-Innocent-Frauds-of-Warren-Mosler.pdf
1. The government must raise funds through taxation or borrowing in order to spend. In other words, government spending is limited by its ability to tax or borrow.
2. With government deficits, we are leaving our debt burden to our children.
3. Government budget deficits take away savings.
4. Social Security is broken.
5. The trade deficit is an unsustainable imbalance that takes away jobs and output.
6. We need savings to provide the funds for investment.
7. It’s a bad thing that higher deficits today mean higher taxes tomorrow.
Go through the list above, you'd find both "blue pillers" and "red pillers" in common agreement with many if not all all.
Naturally, I disagree with all seven. Does that make me mainstream or establishment? Or does it mean I have a heterodox view on monetary matters?
https://moslereconomics.com/wp-cont...n-Deadly-Innocent-Frauds-of-Warren-Mosler.pdf
Mosler and Steve Keen have been running a continuous game of table tennis on X on the topic of trade deficits mind you.
Basically as far as I understand it Keen argues that persistent trade deficits can damage a nation's economy. This argument contrasts with the position that say advocates of MMT and Austrian Economists and even classical economists like Adam Smith hold.
Unfortunately for me Keen operates some seven levels higher than I'm capable of understanding so it's going to be a long slog before I get my head comfortably around what he's saying. Let alone trying to tie it all together in relation to everything else I understand.
Basically as far as I understand it Keen argues that persistent trade deficits can damage a nation's economy. This argument contrasts with the position that say advocates of MMT and Austrian Economists and even classical economists like Adam Smith hold.
Unfortunately for me Keen operates some seven levels higher than I'm capable of understanding so it's going to be a long slog before I get my head comfortably around what he's saying. Let alone trying to tie it all together in relation to everything else I understand.